Globalization and future of power relations in the Arabic Middle-East: a case study of Egypt and Libya

The paper examines how globalization—understood as intensified interconnection that transcends borders—affects power relations in the Arab Middle East. It highlights globalization’s political dimension, including the weakening of state sovereignty, rise of transnational actors, and diffusion of communication technologies. Despite regional resistance, the Middle East has faced mounting pressures since the post–Cold War order. The central question is: what effects has globalization had on power relations in the Arab Middle East, particularly Egypt and Libya? The hypothesis is that by weakening governments’ absolute power and changing subjects’ attitudes, globalization makes transformation of power relations in the region inevitable.

The theoretical framework draws on classic and contemporary globalization scholarship (e.g., McLuhan’s global village; Brzezinski; Robertson; Habermas; Fukuyama; Heywood; Held & McGrew; Piri & Mirzaee). Politically, globalization shifts organization from national to international levels, expands global civil society, strengthens international institutions, and induces a sovereignty crisis in nation-states. It accelerates liberal-democratic norms, human rights discourse, and political pluralism, challenging traditional legitimacy structures in authoritarian contexts. The review situates the Arab Middle East’s dominant power logic—rooted in tradition- and person-based legitimacy, repression, and structural violence—against these global trends, framing how informational and communicative technologies, transnational norms, and economic integration unsettle unilateral power relations.

The article employs a qualitative, theory-driven analysis centered on the political dimension of globalization, using secondary sources and illustrative case evidence from Egypt and Libya. It synthesizes literature on globalization, legitimacy, and structural violence, and analyzes mechanisms (economic control/rentierism, ideological identity, legitimation strategies, control over meaning, ICT-enabled mobilization) through case examples: Egypt’s long-standing emergency law and military courts, expansion of higher education and civil society, and youth/online movements (e.g., April 6); and Libya’s 2011 uprising and ICT-enabled coordination. The approach is conceptual rather than empirical in a statistical sense, arguing from documented events and scholarly references to infer impacts on power relations.

- Globalization erodes core authoritarian control levers in the Arab Middle East by: (1) weakening economic monopolies (state control over public sectors and rents), (2) undermining ideological identity projects, (3) delegitimizing unilateral rule through global norms and scrutiny, and (4) fracturing the state’s monopoly over meaning via ICT and media pluralization. - Economic dimension: Integration into knowledge- and technology-driven markets reduces effectiveness of state-centric, rentier control; privatization, a growing middle class, and youth/women’s education increase socioeconomic demands and political salience beyond state patronage. - Ideological/identity dimension: Dominant, homogenizing state ideologies face revived, individualized, and marginalized identities empowered by global connectivity, challenging assimilationist policies. - Legitimacy dimension: Legitimacy increasingly depends on efficiency and accountability rather than tradition or “security.” Global public opinion and rapid information flows raise the costs of repression and expose abuses quickly. - Meaning/information dimension: Proliferation of media and ICT produces multiple, fluid identities and interpretations, weakening unilateral narratives about citizenship, rights, and civil society. - Social movements and ICT: New movements leverage the Internet and social platforms (Facebook, Twitter) for mobilization, coordination, and legal support. Examples include Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement (≈70,000 members by Jan 2009) and broad-based protests organized via online calls and mosque networks. - Egypt case: Emergency law enabled transfer of civilians to military courts; between 1992–2000, 1033 people tried, with 92 death sentences and 582 imprisonments. Despite repression, higher education expansion and economic liberalization fostered civil society growth and youth-led mobilization culminating in 2011. - Libya case: Protests launched in early 2011 spread nationwide, aided by social media and tools like Google Earth for tactical awareness (e.g., Misrata). International attention and Responsibility to Protect narratives limited the regime’s ability to suppress without consequence and contributed to regime change. - Overall: Subjects’ attitudes shift from habitual obedience toward critical evaluation of rulers based on performance, efficiency, rights, and accountability, making transformation of power relations likely.

Addressing the research question, the analysis shows that globalization constrains authoritarian toolkits (economic control, ideological dominance, legitimation, information control) while enabling subjects through connectivity, awareness, and organizational capacity. In Egypt, decades of legal exceptionalism and repression were offset by rising education, civil society, and online coordination, culminating in mass mobilization in 2011. In Libya, similar diffusion of information and global norms intersected with domestic grievances to enable rapid protest escalation and external engagement. These dynamics directly weaken unilateral, imposed power relations and push rulers toward accountability-based legitimacy. The findings underscore that in a globalized information order, authoritarian stability increasingly requires internal legitimacy founded on performance and respect for rights; absent this, public contestation and external scrutiny intensify, reshaping state–society relations across the region.

Globalization and ICT have expanded cross-border contact and global public oversight, fundamentally challenging state sovereignty and authoritarian practices in the Arab Middle East. As control mechanisms erode, citizens’ awareness of rights and governance deficits grows, expanding demands for improved living conditions, participation, and accountability. The region’s crises—from protests to revolutions and civil wars—reflect this structural shift. A sustainable future order requires power relations grounded in efficiency, accountability, respect for civil rights, and mechanisms for peaceful power transfer, rather than tradition-, personality-, or security-based legitimacy. While transformations are uneven and contested, the trajectory indicates an inevitable reconfiguration of power relations toward more balanced state–society interactions. Future research could deepen comparative analysis across more Arab states, incorporate primary data on movement organization and digital mobilization, and evaluate post-uprising institutional outcomes.